R v Rook [1993] 2 All ER 955

X promised to pay Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to kill his wife.

On the day, Defendant 2 was nowhere to be found but Defendant 1 killed the wife anyway. Defendant 2 was also convicted for murder as an accessory.

On appeal he pointed out that he wasn’t there on the day, took no part in the act and never intended that the wide should die (merely he hoped to take the money in advance and flee without partaking in the killing).

CA rejected this, saying that one could be guilty as an accessory if one gave prior encouragement to Defendant 1 intentionally, with the foresight that there was a real risk of Defendant 1 committing that type of crime. Actual presence or intent that V should die is irrelevant.

CA say that here Defendant 2 did even less to withdraw than B in Becerra and Cooper since he didn’t even communicate his withdrawal to the other parties to the crime. CA says it may be correct route to say that Defendant 2, wanting to withdraw has to do his best to disrupt the crime.